Dorothy Rabinowitz recently announced the death of multiculturalism in
the Wall Street Journal. Citing the
pronouncements of the prime ministers of England, France, and Germany, she
crowed: “Who would have believed that in the space of a few weeks the leaders
of the three major European powers would publicly denounce multiculturalism
and declare in so many words that it was a proven disaster and a threat to
society?”

Rabinowitz claimed that multiculturalism had “led to segregated
communities”; it had also “helped nurture radical Islam’s terrorist cells.”
Rabinowitz goes on to claim that multiculturalism, which she describes as
“the unofficial established religion of the universities,” is, in fact, “a
faith whose requirements have shaped every aspect of cultural, economic and
political life in Western democracies for the last 50 years.”[1]

Twenty years ago Rabinowitz was worried about Pat Buchanan and Joe
Sobran. Twenty years ago she was writing to the editors of papers like the Philadelphia Inquirer demanding that
that paper drop Joe Sobran as one of its columnists. Now she’s worried about
Major Hasan. For those of you who have trouble keeping mass murderers
straight in your mind, in November 2009 Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire
in Fort Hood killing 12 fellow soldiers and wounding 32 others. Rabinowitz
attributes this attack to a combination of “Hasan’s well-documented jihadist
sympathies” and multiculturalism. She ends her piece by claiming that when
Major Hasan goes on trial, “The forces of multiculturalist piety, which
played so central a role in advancing this Army major and concealing the
menace he posed, will be the invisible presence on trial with him.”

Associating multiculturalism with Islam is a daring rhetorical move,
especially when that rhetorical move is made by a Jew, because Dorothy
Rabinowitz must know, even if the dumb goyim
who read her columns in the Wall Street
Journal do not, that multiculturalism has been a completely Jewish
creation from start to finish. For over 100 years now, Jews in America have
been promoting multiculturalism as a strategy for weakening the dominant
culture and thereby enhancing Jewish power.

In
his essay “Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration policy,
1881-1965: A Historical Review,”[2]
University of California at Long Beach Professor Kevin MacDonald shows in
exhaustive detail how Jewish organizations supported multiculturalism almost
from the moment when eastern European Jews arrived in significant numbers on
these shores. According to MacDonald, the “historical record supports the
proposition that making the US into a multicultural society has been a major
goal of organized Jewry beginning in the 19th century.” The main
way in which Jews promoted multiculturalism is by changing this nation’s
immigration laws. “Jews,” according to MacDonald, “have been ‘the single most
persistent pressure group favoring a liberal immigration policy’ in the US in
the entire immigration debate beginning in 1881.” MacDonald goes on to cite one
Jewish authority after another to back up his case. According to Neuringer:

Immigration had constituted a prime object
of concern for practically every major Jewish defense and community relations
organization. Over the years their spokesmen had assiduously attended
congressional hearings and the Jewish effort was of the utmost importance in
establishing and financing such nonsectarian groups as the National Liberal
Immigration League and the Citizens Committee for Displaced Persons.

According to Nathan C.
Belth:

In Congress, through all the years when the
immigration battles were being fought, the names of Jewish legislators were
in the forefront of the liberal forces: from Adolph Sabath to Samuel
Dickstein and Emanuel Celler in the House and from Herbert H. Lehman to Jacob
Javits in the Senate. Each in this time was leader of the ADL and of major
organizations concerned with democratic development.

Indeed, writing in 1914, the sociologist Edward A.
Ross had a clear sense that liberal immigration policy was exclusively a
Jewish issue.

The Jewish promotion of multiculturalism in America had two main goals:
1) “maximizing the number of Jewish immigrants” and 2) “opening up the US to
immigration from all of the peoples of the world.” Both goals paradoxically
used “diversity” as a stalking horse to advance Jewish ethnocentrism. This is
so because the whole point of multiculturalism is not so much the promotion
of diversity as it is the demographic dilution of homogeneity. Jews wanted to
weaken the majority culture because they always felt uncomfortable in unified
coherent cultures. The defenders of immigration restriction during this
period made it clear that America was a country which had been settled and
was then inhabited by Christians from northwestern Europe. This implied
racial superiority in the minds of the Jewish proponents of restrictionism
but not the legislators, who claimed that “the northern European, and
particularly Anglo-Saxons, made this country. . . . It is a good country. It
suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to
somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it
something different.” Representative Leavitt saw through the diversity ploy
when he complained that the Jews were “the one great historic people who have
maintained the identity of their race throughout centuries because they
believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to
maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals.”

The restrictionists complained that the Jews were attempting to shape
U.S. immigration policy according to Jewish interests and not in the
interests of the country which welcomed them as immigrants:

Hence the endeavor of the Jews to control the
immigration policy of the United States. . . . The systematic campaign in
newspapers to break down all arguments for restriction and to claim nativist
fears is waged by and for one race. Hebrew money is behind the National
Liberal Immigration League and its numerous publications. . . . literature
that proves the blessings of immigration to all classes in America emanates
from subtle Hebrew brains.

The reference to “subtle Hebrew brains” probably
excludes Dorothy Rabinowitz from our discussion, but the purpose of
multiculturalism has remained constant, as has the Jewish support for it. The
purpose of multiculturalism has always been to subvert coherent cultures,
weaken the majority, and thereby enhance the Jews’ power. Or, as MacDonald
puts it,

ethnic and religious pluralism serves external
Jewish interest because Jews become just one of many ethnic groups. This
results in the diffusion of political and cultural influence among the
various ethnic and religious groups, and it becomes difficult or impossible
to develop unified, cohesive groups of gentiles united in their opposition to
Judaism.Historically, major
anti-Semitic movements have tended to erupt in societies that have been,
apart from the Jews, religiously and/or ethnically homogeneous.

The restrictionists included organized labor, who feared competition
from the new immigrants who were a perennial source of cheap labor.

“During this period, the immigration issue was also economic. Native
businesses feared cutthroat Jewish business practices.” Jewish factory
owners, the group most likely to be the backers of Jewish organizations
favored immigration as a source of cheap labor. During this period [1914]
Edward A. Ross described gentile resentment for “being obliged to engage in a
humiliating and undignified scramble to keep his trade or his clients against
the Jewish invader—suggesting a rather broad-based concern with Jewish
economic competition.”

The early opponents of multiculturalism also feared Jews as agents of
cultural subversion: “Our whole system of amusements has been taken over by
men who came here on the crest of the south and east European immigration.
They produce our horrible film stories; they compose and dish out to us our
jazz music, they write many of the books we read, and edit our magazines and
newspapers.”

Jewish immigrants were also “widely perceived to be ...
disproportionately involved in radical political movements,” a fact often
acknowledged by the Jewish press. In one of its editorials, The American Hebrew pointed out that
“we must not forget the immigrants form Russia and Austria will becoming from
countries infested with Bolshevism, and it will require more than a
superficial effort to make good citizens out of them.”

The
fact that Jewish immigrants form Eastern Europe were viewed as “infected with
Bolshevism. . . unpatriotic, alien, unassimilable” resulted in a wave of
anti-Semitism in the 1920s and contributed to the restrictive immigration
legislation of the period. Almost a decade after the immigration debate ended
with the triumph of the restrictionists in 1924, Jewish immigration was still
having consequences for American identity. As MacDonald points out, “In
Philadelphia in the 1930s, fully 72.2 percent of the Communist Party members
were the children of Jewish immigrants who came to the US in the late 19th
and early 20th century.”

During the 1920s, Franz Boas, the Prussian Jewish anthropology
professor from Columbia University, turned the social sciences into a form of
ethnic warfare. Arguments from anthropology, no matter how absurd, could then
be marshaled as “scientific” refutation of restrictionist immigration
policies:

Carl Degler notes that Boas’s professional
correspondence “reveals that an important motive behind his famous
head-measuring project in 1910 was his strong personal interest in keeping
America diverse in population.” The study, whose conclusions were placed into
the Congressional Record by Representative Emanuel Celler during the debate
on immigration restriction . . . concluded that the environmental difference
consequent to immigration caused differences in head shape.

The Battle over multiculturalism continued unabated after World War II.
Senator Pat McCarran, a Catholic from Arizona, was subjected to
psychoanalysis on the pages of Commentary magazine, published by the American
Jewish Committee, as a way of explaining his opposition to the progressive
Jewish view on immigration. As before the war, the opposition to McCarran’s
bill—which became the McCarran-Walter act—“was led by Jewish members of
Congress, including Celler, Javits and Lehman, all of whom . . . were
prominent members of the ADL.”

There is a direct link between Jewish anthropology as practiced by
Franz Boas during the 1920s and Jewish immigration policy as implemented by
Senator Jacob Javits in 1965. In other words, if New York City resembles
Mogadishu these days, we have Dorothy Rabinowitz and her co-religionists to
thank for this. The main reason people like Major Hasan are American citizens
and serving in the United States Army is the immigration bill of 1965, which
was a Jewish operation from start to finish. It turns out that the Jewish
organizations that promoted multiculturalism all shared the view of America
proposed by Philip Roth in his recent paranoid fantasy novel The Plot against America. America, in
spite of waging war on Hitler’s Third Reich, was always in Jewish eyes a
country waiting to be taken over by Nazi extremists. Multiculturalism was the
Jewish way of ensuring that that would not happen. As MacDonald points
out:

Earl Raab . . . remarks very positively on the
success of revised American foreign policy in altering the ethnic composition
of the United States since 1965.Raab
notes that the Jewish community has taken a leadership role in changing the
Northwestern European bias of American immigration policy, and he has also
maintained that one fact inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary US is
“an increasing ethnic heterogeneity as a result of immigration, has made it
even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to
develop.” Or more colorfully: “The Census Bureau has just reported that about
half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And
they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a
Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.” . . . Indeed the
“primary objective” of Jewish political activity after 1945 “was . . . to
prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the
United States.”

Charles Silberman notes that “American Jews are committed to cultural
tolerance because of their belief that Jews are safe only in a society
acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity
of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval
of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to
endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stand on most other so-called
‘social’ issues.”

Silberman’s testimony leads MacDonald to conclude that:

The 1965 law is having the effect that it seems
reasonable to suppose had been intended by its Jewish advocates all along:
the Census Bureau projects that by the year 2050, European-derived peoples
with no longer be a majority of the population of America.Moreover, multiculturalism has already
become a powerful ideological and political reality.

In promoting their multicultural agenda, the Jews claimed that it would
lead to collaboration and brotherhood. Writers like Boas protégé Israel
Ehrenberg, who wrote under the name of Ashley Montagu, claimed that human
beings were “innately cooperative.” Any evidence that increasing ethnic
diversity led to ethnic conflict, i.e., violence, was ignored by the Boasian
social science establishment, which had an a priori and overriding commitment
to Jewish universalism. Conflict and violence, however, were inevitable,
especially since the dominant philosophy of post-Christian America was then
and is now Capitalism, which is the economic version of the war of all
against all:

If one adopts a cultural pluralism model in which
there is free competition for resources and reproductive success, difference
between ethnic groups are inevitable, and history suggests that such
differences would result in animosity from the groups that are losing out. .
. . Under present policies, each racial/ethnic group in the world is
encouraged to press its interest in expanding its demographic and political
presence in America and can be expected to do so if given the opportunity.

According to MacDonald, the American Jewish Committee, the main
proponent of both multiculturalism and unrestricted immigration, succeeded in
changing the ethnic make up of the United States by a combination of “strong
leadership [particularly Louis Marshall], internal cohesion, well-funded
programs, sophisticated lobbying techniques, well-chosen non-Jewish allies
and good timing.”

If timing is everything the timing was all wrong in Rabinowitz’s attack
on the connection between Major Hasan, Islam and multiculturalism. One the
one hand, Islam was changing the political face of the Middle East through
non-violent, pro-democracy rallies. Egypt had just toppled its dictator in a
bloodless revolution. (Paradoxically, the same pro-democracy forces that neocons
like Rabinowitz had promoted as agents of change in the Middle East were
finally having their day, and the neocons were upset being pro-democracy in
the Middle East means invariably being anti-Israel.) On the other hand, at
the very moment when the Islamic world was becoming a paradigm of non-violent
democratic revolution of the sort that the neocons all claimed they desired
in the mid-East, Americans were treated to a spate of mass murders
perpetrated by Jews.

That you may not have noticed this is not surprising. Ever since the
Leo Frank trial in America, the Dreyfus case in France, and the Mendil Beilis
case in Russia, the Jewish-dominated press has adopted a policy of 1)
suppressing the evidence whenever a suspect in a crime turns out to be a Jew and
2) accusing anyone who brings up this fact of anti-Semitism. In addition to
that, the Jewish dominated media work for the exoneration of any Jew brought
to trial.The pattern had already
been established in the 19th century. Once Jews gained significant
control over the press, they instituted a policy which suppressed the
identification of Jews as criminals, or as a fallback position, once the
Jewishness of the perpetrator was inescapable, of proclaiming the suspect as
an innocent victim of anti-Semitism. The trial of Leo Frank is a good case in
point, and it has served as a template for the Jewish press ever since. As
one writer put it in 1892:

It is a strange phenomenon
which otherwise is evident in no other religious group that the Jewish public
opinion in the Austrian press always shows solidarity with Jewish criminals.
Every time a Jew is convicted of a crime, it is take as new proof for
pervasive anti-Semitism. Every conviction is evidence of anti-Semitism.[3]

II

Dorothy Rabinowitz could have bolstered her case
against multiculturalism if she had cited the story of Maksim Gellman.One week before her article appeared in
the Wall Street Journal, Maksim
Gelman, a recent Ukrainian immigrant, who became an American citizen in 2005,
went on a two-day killing spree from February 11 to February 12, 2011, which
resulted in the stabbing deaths of four people, including his girlfriend’s
mother, and the wounding of five others. The only problem in this scenario,
at least from Rabinowitz’s point of view, is that Gelman is a Jew. He was
certainly a product of Jewish-inspired multiculturalism which opened this
country’s borders in 1965, but it is unlikely that he was inspired by
jihadism, especially since his father drove an ambulance for a Jewish
organization. If Rabinowitz were
interested in understanding the psychology of mass murderers, she should have
focused on the Jews because it was they who were making the news as mass
murderers in early 2011, not the Muslims.

The story of Jared Loughner is another case in point. Roughly one month
before Maksim Gelman’s homocidal rampage in New York,on January 8, 2011, Loughner went on a
shooting spree that resulted in the death of six people and left 14 wounded.
One of the people whom Loughner shot but did not kill was United States
Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who is Jewish. The response to the
killings was both predictable and immediate. Loughner was accused of being a
right-wing anti-Semite whose actions had been set in motion by right-wing
talk radio and politicians like Sara Palin, whose website featured a picture
of Giffords in the cross hairs of a gun sight. The hate crime story
circulated widely until the facts started to emerge. Loughner, it turns out,
was a Jew himself. In fact, according to some reports, he was a member of the
same synagogue that Giffords attended. To make matters more complicated, his
favorite book was Mein Kampf.
Loughner was, in other words, a Jewish Nazi.According to the Jewish Telegraph Agency:

Bryce Tierney, a friend of Loughner from high
school, told Mother Jones magazine that the alleged gunman posted “Mein
Kampf” as a “favorite book” on a social media site in part to provoke his
mother, who Tierney says is Jewish.

Once it became apparent that Loughner was Jewish, and once it had
become clear that it was going to be impossible to maintain the right-wing,
anti-Semite story line, the story began to change. The ADL then released an
“analysis of the messages written by Arizona shooting suspect Jared Lee
Loughner” which “revealed Wednesday that the he may not have been motivated
by anti-Semitism when shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, but rather
by a profound mistrust of government.”

“While there is still much we don't know about Loughner, his online
footprint offers one window into his mindset in the months leading up to the
killings,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “The writings that
have come to light so far suggest someone who probably was not associated
with any extremist group or movement, but who has a generic distrust of
government and a vague interest in conspiracy theories.”

In other words, the ADL was telling us that the
fact that Mein Kampf was Loughner’s
favorite book had nothing to do with his attempted assassination of a Jewish
member of Congress. The only way this makes sense is if we look at the
already mentioned pattern of Jewish organizations and newspapers, who
exonerate automatically any suspect who happens to be Jewish. But even
granting that, it’s probably just as accurate to say that the concept of a
Jewish Nazi is simply too difficult for the media to process.

The historic precedent of Jewish Nazis
assassinating Jewish politicians, however, has already been established, no
matter how alien it seems to 21st American media categories. Anton
Graf von Arco auf Valley was a Jewish Nazi in the most literal sense of the
term.In February 1919, he
assassinated Kurt Eisner, the Jewish premier of the Bavarian soviet republic.
Arco Valley had served in the German army during World War I and upon his
return to civilian life in Munich he was appalled at what he saw as the
Jewish influence which took over German culture in the wake of their defeat.
Some speculate that he decided to kill Eisner to prove himself to his
nationalist friends in the Thule Society, but the mystery remains. Why would
a Jew other than Groucho Marx want to be part of an organization that would
not accept him as a member? Politics may have had something to do with it.
Arco Valley is reported to have said that “Eisner is a Bolshevist, a Jew; he
isn’t German; he doesn’t feel German; he subverts all patriotic thoughts and
feelings. He is a traitor to this land.”[4]
Once Arco Valley killed Eisner, the students at the university which he was
attending proclaimed him a hero. Hitler was grateful to his Jewish supporter
because Eisner’s death led to the creation of the Bavarian Soviet Republic,
under another Jew, Eugen Levine, and this convinced groups like the Bavarian
Freikorps that things had gone too far and caused them to intervene and put
an end to the Communist, i.e., Jewish takeover of Bavaria. Arco Valley
was sentenced to death for his crime, but a sympathetic judge overturned the
ruling and commuted it to a five-year prison sentence. Four years into his
sentence, he was evicted from his cell to make room for Adolf Hitler, who
wrote Mein Kampf during his stay
there.

Jewish mass murderers remain invisible in America in the 21st
century because the concept of the hate crime was created with a political
purpose in mind. Murder as already a crime in every state in the union; hate
crimes were created to demonize a certain group of people. As a result, the
hate crime went on to become a self-fulfilling prophecy because it is only
applied when the perpetrator fits a certain profile. As the late Tom Herron
pointed out in these pages, the Jew who deliberately set fire to the church
of the little flower in Royal Oak, Michigan as retaliation against Father
Coughlin, could not be construed as the perpetrator of a hate crime because
he was Jewish.

Needless to say, the Rabinowitz theory that mass murders came about
when jihadism mixed with multiculturalism was looking less plausible by the
minute. On February 10, 2010, which is to say one year before Rabinowitz
discovered the key to mass murder in a combination of jihadism and
multiculturalism, a white professor walked into a faculty meeting of the
biology department at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and murdered
the African-American department chairman and other persons of color in the department.
This would seem to constitute the quintessential hate crime. That’s how the
media would have played the story had they not discovered that the mass
murderer in this instance turned out to be a woman and Jewish. Once those
facts were established, the story, deprived of its political usefulness,
disappeared from the headlines.

Amy Bishop, the Jewish lady who gunned down her black department
chairman, had murdered her brother a few years earlier but had never been
prosecuted because her parents were both wealthy and members of powerful
Jewish organizations. Once it becomes apparent that a mass murderer is Jewish
the story changes dramatically. Suddenly, we are out of the realm of hate
crime and into the realm of dynamic silence, or back to the ‘60s therapy
explanation of why basically good people do bad things when under stress
because they have not been granted tenure, etc.

PRO-LIFE JEW

Just as the recently deceased Bernard Nathanson found that he ceased to
exist as a person in the public record when the became a Jew who opposed
abortion (there is not such thing as a pro-life Jew according to the
categories of the New York Times)
so there is no such thing as a Jewish Nazi or a Jewish mass murderer. The
category simply doesn’t exist.

Unless, of course, you read Israel Shahak’s
account of Baruch Goldstein, yet another Jewish mass murderer, and how he
murdered 29 men, including children, at the Patriarch’s cave in Hebron on
February 25, 1994. Goldstein was born into an Orthodox Jewish family from
Brooklyn, where he attended the Yeshivah of Flatbush, Yeshiva University and
Albert Einstein College of Medicine. One of Goldstein’s boyhood friends was
Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the Jewish Defense League, and so it came as no
surprise when Goldstein joined that organization.

Goldstein emigrated to Israel in 1983 and served as a physician in the
Israeli Defense Force, where he refused to treat Arabs, even if they were
members of the IDF. The IDF ignored his disobedience of a direct order and
sheltered him instead of punishing him until the day he died at the hands of
the Palestinians he had failed to kill in his attack.

According
to the Wikipedia entry under his name, “Goldstein was immediately denounced
with shocked horror even by the mainstream Orthodox,’ and most in Israel
classified Goldstein as insane.” Israel Shakak tells a different story in his
book Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel,
which documents Goldstein’s apotheosis as a Jewish saint, complete with
monument and pilgrimages to his gravesite. The canonization procedures
started at Goldstein’s funeral when Rabbi Yaacov Perrin announced that the
lives of one million Arabs were “not worth a single Jewish fingernail.”
Goldstein had become a Jewish saint because he was a Jewish mass murderer:

While the government seemed determined to play
down the magnitude of the massacre, the Jewish masses had turned Goldstein
into a saint. . . . In 2010, Jewish settlers were criticized that during
celebrations of Purim they sang songs praising Baruch Goldstein's massacre demonstratively
in front of their Arab neighbours. A phrase from the song reads "Dr.
Goldstein, there is none other like you in the world. Dr. Goldstein, we all
love you… he aimed at terrorists' heads, squeezed the trigger hard, and shot
bullets, and shot, and shot.”

According to Shahak and Mezvinsky, “Goldstein’s behavior had deep roots
in the Jewish religion, and that religion had a profound influence on
political culture in Israel.” The main connection between Goldstein’s act of
mass murder and the Jewish religion lay in the halachic teaching that “the
killing by a Jew of a non-Jew under any circumstances is not regarded as
murder.” Hence, in the ensuing discussion, “the terms ‘murder,’ ‘massacre’ or
‘killing’ were avoided; instead the terms used were ‘deed,’ ‘event’ or ‘occurrence.’”

The fact that “at least 50 percent of Israeli Jews” approved of the
massacre led Katz to claim that “the most obvious conclusion” is that “we,
the Jews . . . have been programmed by the same racist computer program that
is shaping the majority of the world’s nations.”

Mention of Jewish racism then led to a discussion of Jewish
Nazism.Goldstein was a Jewish Nazi
because, unlike Christians who believed in conversion of the Jews, he, like
Hitler and Goebbels, believed in exterminating his enemies because of
ineradicable racial characteristics. The esteemed Israeli journalist Teddy
Preus made the Jewish-Nazi connection in article which appeared in Davar on March 4, 1994:

Compared to the giant-scale mass murderers of
Auschwitz, Goldstein was certainly a petty murderer. His recorded statements
and those of his comrades, however, prove that they were perfectly willing to
exterminate at least two million Palestinians at an opportune moment. This
makes Dr. Goldstein comparable to Dr. Mengele; the same holds true for anyone
saying that he [or she] would welcome more of such Purim holiday
celebrations. [The massacre occurred on that holiday.] Let us not devalue
Goldstein by comparing him with an inquisitor or a Muslim Jihad fighter.
Whenever an infidel was ready to convert to either Christianity or Islam, an
inquisitor or Muslim Jihad fighter would, as a rule, spare his life.
Goldstein and his admirers are not interested in converting Arabs to Judaism.
As their statements abundantly testify, they see the Arabs as nothing more
than disease-spreading rats, lice or other loathsome creatures; this is
exactly how the Nazis believed that the Aryan race alone had laudable
qualities that were inheritable but that could become polluted by sheer
contact with dirty and morbid Jews. [JDL founder Meir] Kahane, who learned
nothing from the Nuremberg Laws, had exactly the same notions about the
Arabs.

Shahak and Mershinzky conclude their book with a condemnation of “those
who are silent and do not condemn Jewish Nazism, as exemplified by the
ideologies of Goldstein and Ginsburgh, especially if they are Jews, [because
they] are guilty of the terrible consequences that may yet develop as a
result of their silence.”

III

Seven years after Baruch Goldstein murdered 29 Palestinians in the cave
of the patriarch in Hebron, and less than 5 years after Shahak and Merzinsky
explained how Goldstein was a Jewish Nazi, The Believer, a film written and directed by Henry Bean about an
orthodox Jew who becomes a neo-Nazi won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2001
Sundance film festival. The film is based loosely on the life of Daniel
Burros, a neo-Nazi who committed suicide in the mid-‘60s after a New York Times reporter wrote an
article exposing him as a Jew. According to Bean:

Burros was staying at a camp in the Poconos
with the neo-Nazis when the story in the New
York Times claiming that he was Jewish came out.The Nazis weren’t upset. They were saying
just sit down; we can talk about this. But Burros went up to his room, put on
a Wagner record and shot himself. He killed himself within an hour of the
story coming out.

Bean began discussing the Danny Burros
story in the ‘70s when he was a writer living on the West Coast. He began to
see Burros as typifying a particular kind of Jew. “He was a rabbi
manque.Antisemitism is a form of
practicing Judaism.He’s sort of a
rabbi after all. A Jew by day, a Nazi by night. . . . He was desperately
hiding something and compulsively trying to bring it out at the same time. People
are drawn to contradiction. He undergoes a conversion, but not back to the
Torah.” By telling the story of the Jewish Nazi, Bean concluded, “I began to
understand what Judaism was.”

Bean’s explanation of how a Jew can become a Nazi is at root
theological. Through a series of flashbacks, the viewer sees Danny Balint, as
he is called in the movie, arguing with his Yeshiva teacher about whether
Abraham spared Isaac’s life, as recounted in the Genesis account, or whether,
as Danny maintains, he died on Mt. Moriah. Danny’s problems with religion
stem from the fact that he takes the Torah much more seriously and literally
than his fellow Yeshiva bokkers.
When one of them tells Danny that “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of
wisdom,” he becomes rhapsodic: “Fear of the Lord,” he responds, “makes you
afraid of everything. Do you even believe in God? I’m the only one who does
believe. I see Him for the power-drunk madman that he is. And we’re supposed
to worship such a deity? I say never.”

At this point the teacher tells one of the students “to ask Rabbi
Singer remove Danny from my class,” something which prompts Danny to turn his
eyes upward and say to God, “Then let Him destroy me now. Let Him destroy me
like the conceited bully that He is. Go ahead.”

Like Jared Loughner, Danny
Balint is a Jew who has read Mein Kampf
and thinks it’s a great book. “Did you ever read Mein Kampf?” Danny asks his fellow skinheads when they end up in
jail after a fight with two blacks. “Hitler had some of his best ideas in
prison.” Danny admires Hitler, especially his views on race. In the middle of
a meeting of more moderate right-wingers at an upscale Manhattan apartment,
Danny, who is wearing a red T-shirt emblazoned with a black swastika,
interrupts the speaker to opine that “race is central to everything we’re
talking about tonight. Race is the source of religion.” When the speaker
objects that this would mean “Germany all over again.” Danny responds by
saying, “Isn’t that what we want? Germany all over again but done right this
time?"

When Danny gets a call from a New
York Times reporter, he gives an eloquent articulation of anti-Semitism.
Judaism “is a sickness. . . . The real Jew is a nomad and a wanderer. He has
no roots and no attachments. He universalizes everything. All he can do is
buy and sell and manipulate markets. It’s all mental. Marx, Freud, Einstein:
what have they given us? Communism, infantile sexuality and the atom bomb.
They want nothing but nothingness, nothing without end.”

The main issue in The Believer
is theological. Danny has penetrated to the heart of the Jewish religion by
understanding that the Jew worships Nothingness. As he says to the Times reporter, the Jews “want nothing
but nothingness, nothing without end.”

The Times reporter is
impressed, but as we have come to expect from reporters, at the moment when
the real issue is framed, the reporter changes the subject. “Wow,” he tells
Danny, “You’re incredibly articulate, but how can you believe all this when
you’re a Jew yourself?”

When confronted by the contradiction at the heart of his identity,
Danny becomes violent. At first he denies he’s Jewish, then he threatens to
sue the Times if the reporter
publishes the article: “It’s reckless disregard. I’m going to sue your
fucking Jew paper.” Finally, he takes out a gun and puts it into the mouth of
the reporter and announces, as if unaware of the contradiction: “If you
publish that article, I will kill myself.”

All of the themes we have been discussing—Jews, racism, Nazism,
nihilism, and violence—are all present in this powerful scene. At this point,
they begin to coalesce into a coherent picture. The Jewish Nazi is a
political terrorist, but he is, first of all, a Nazi, which is to say a
particular kind of socialist. Jews were drawn to socialism and communism throughout
the 19th century. In fact Jews made up the backbone of those
movements. Jews were drawn to those movements because they provided both an
antidote and a way to give political expression to the Jewish nihilism which
came into being when the Enlightenment arrived in the shtetl and destroyed rabbinic Judaism. Deprived of a coherent
worldview, the Jew still had a sense of himself as a member of the chosen
race which could now only find expression in revolutionary violence. The best
way for the shtetl Jew to bring
about tikkun olan was via dynamite and the Colt revolver.

Because Danny lives in an age in which socialism has failed, he is
unsure of how to focus the revolutionary violence that is going to deliver
him from the strong pull toward non-being which Jewish nihilism creates.
Should he kill the reporter from the Jew newspaper or should he kill himself?
Actually, the question needs to be reframed in light of what Danny actually
said, namely, “If you publish that article, I will kill myself.”Should Danny the Nazi kill Danny the Jew?
In a fantasy he picked up after hearing a holocaust survivor describe how a
Nazi soldier killed his son, Danny plays the role of both Jew and Nazi
soldier.

JUDAISM IS NIHILISTIC

Judaism, according to the theology proposed by The Believer, is essentially nihilistic. The Jews “want nothing
but nothingness, nothing without end.” This theme gets developed throughout
the film. When Danny’s girlfriend asks him to explain the difference between
God’s apophatic character and “Him not existing at all,” Danny replies,
“there is no difference.” When she tells him that “Christianity’s silly but
at least there’s something to believe in,” Danny responds by saying, “Judaism
is nothing. Nothing but nothingness.” Then as if reconsidering the issue,
Danny says, “Judaism isn’t really about belief. It’s about doing things.”

“And belief follows?”
his girlfriend asks.

“Nothing follows.”

Eventually his girlfriend catches on. After setting out a seder meal
for Danny, she says he should sit down and take part in the meal because God
“commands it whether he exists or not.”

Like Jacob, Danny’s girlfriend concludes that there is no point in fighting
God. “We can fight Him and be crushed. Or we can submit.”

“And be crushed,” says Danny.

After their rejection of Christ, the Jews confected a religion which is
based on the absence of Logos, which is to say, the absence of Being, which
is to say, nothing. If the Eucharist in the tabernacle in the Catholic Church
can be termed “the real presence,” then what the Jew who rejected Christ
worships in his synagogue can be termed “the real absence,” which is another
word for nothing. The Jew worships nothing; or better, the Jew worships
nothingness. The Jew, as Jacques Derrida has pointed out malgre lui but
amply in his deconstructive literary criticism, is obsessed with the absence
of presence or the presence of absence.

Nihilism leads inevitably to violence because violence, which is a
manifestation of the arbitrary and autonomous will, is the only way that the
acting person can assert his existence in a world without Logos. Violence is
an extreme form of self-assertion, and only extreme forms of assertion are
powerful enough to prevent the slide into non-being to which the Jewish
nihilist is exposed by the very fact that he is Jewish. That is so because
Jews worship the absence of being and as a result “want nothing but
nothingness, nothing without end.” Judaism is about doing things because
nihilism is ultimately about doing things, because action is the only thing
that prevents dissolution into non-being in a universe based on nothingness.

Nihilism, in other words, leads inevitably to violence. So to get back
to the plot of The Believer, when
Danny goes to a Jewish bookstore, he meets one of his former Yeshiva
classmates, who invites him to the synagogue for services--the same
synagogue, it turns out, where Danny planted a bomb, which failed to go off.
This time he plants another bomb, timed to go off during Sabbath services, at
which he decides to read the Torah.When Danny goes to the synagogue, he meets one of his former Yeshiva
classmates, who calls him a “Jewish Nazi.” By showing up to davin at the
synagogue where he has planted a bomb, Danny the Nazi finally succeeds in
killing Danny the Jew. But since he dies reciting the Torah, it is equally
accurate to say the Danny the Jew ends up killing Danny the Nazi.

At the end of the film, after Danny blows up the synagogue in which he
is praying, we next see him running up a flight of stairs at the Yeshiva. At
the top of one flight, Danny sees his former teacher, who now agrees with
Danny, claiming now that “Isaac died on Mt. Moriah and was reborn in the
world to come,” but Danny runs past him up yet another flight of steps,
causing the teacher to ask, “Danny, where are you going. Don’t you know?
There’s nothing up there.” Jewish nihilism, in other words, leads to Jewish
violence. To be continued.

This excerpt from the e-book Jewish Nazis ran in
the April 2011 issue of Culture Wars.

Jewish Nazis by E. Michael Jones.
The Believer, a film about Danny Balint, an orthodox Jew who becomes a neo-Nazi, won the 2001 Sundance film festival Grand Jury Prize. It's based loosely on Daniel Burros, a neo-Nazi who committed suicide in the ‘60s after the New York Times exposed him as a Jew. When Danny Balint is called by a Times reporter, he gives an eloquent articulation of anti-Semitism. Judaism "is a sickness. . . . The real Jew is a nomad and a wanderer. He has no roots and no attachments. He universalizes everything. All he can do is buy and sell and manipulate markets. It’s all mental. Marx, Freud, Einstein: what have they given us? Communism, infantile sexuality and the atom bomb. They want nothing but nothingness, nothing without end." Balint penetrates to the heart of Judaism, understanding that the Jew worships Nothingness. If Hitler is chief Nihilist of the 20th century, he is chief rabbi of the religion that worships "nothing but nothingness, nothing without end," attaining that position by default when the Catholic Church stopped working for conversion of the Jews. e-book for Kindle. $2.99. Read
More/Buy

The
Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History by
E. Michael Jones. Jews for Jesus versus Jews against Jesus; Christians versus
Christians versus Jews. This book is the story of such contests played out
over 2000 turbulent years. In his most ambitious work, Dr. E. Michael Jones
provides a breathtaking and controversial tour of history from the Gospels to
the French Revolution to Neoconservatism and the “End of History.”$48 + S&H,
Hardback. [In ordering for shipment outside the U.S., the book's price
will appear higher to offset increased shipping charges.] Read Reviews